Article: Ethical Questions Regarding the Use of the Internet
ETHICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE USE OF THE INTERNET
1. Introduction
The use of the Internet in today's world has become widespread, and will probably only increase in the near future. The Internet provides access, at a very low cost, to many sources of information that are useful for one's study, for trips, current events (newspapers, etc.), timetables for museums and means of transportation, scientific, philosophical and theological publications, library catalogues from all over the world, pictures and photos, encyclopedias, documents of doctrinal interest, commercial and financial information, etc. In addition, it enables one to make purchases that at times save quite a bit of money. In many sectors of work it has become an indispensable or at least very useful instrument, because it saves time and expense and provides knowledge that otherwise would be very difficult to obtain. One of the services connected with the Internet is electronic mail, which makes possible rapid communication with any corner of the world, and helps facilitate a number of other useful services (for example, receiving by e-mail the table of contents of new volumes of scientific or philosophical journals to which one subscribes, often at no cost.)
The Internet is meant to be an open and free network, with no restriction on content. Only activities that are viewed as seriously offensive (terrorism, child pornography, credit card frauds, etc.) are subject to control and prosecution, although the size and complexity of the world-wide web often allows one to evade these controls. The Internet provides the opportunity to pass on to others material with a positive content, thus helping to spread good doctrine and to counteract the ideological monopoly exercised by large editorial chains, television stations, etc. At the same time, it makes available material that may have little scientific value (information that is false or unreliable), pornographic images (more or less "hard-core"), and material that fosters violence, racism or terrorism. It can also facilitate links with unsavory persons (pederasts, prostitutes, obscene conversations or "chat rooms," etc.). Even without falling into these extreme situations, the possibility of freely "surfing" through every corner of the world can arouse one's curiosity and lead to wasting a lot of time, if one lacks discipline and self-control.
Neither good nor evil are specific to the Internet. It is not the only means for doing good nor the only means for doing evil. It isn't true that certain dangers are exclusive to the Internet, since almost all the harmful effects of the web are now being spread through other means of communication. Specifically, experience has shown that allowing adolescents to have a television in their bedrooms that can be turned on at any hour of the day or night is even more harmful, as is the recent availability in schools of small pornographic clips for mobile phones (only the simplest and cheapest mobile phones fail to provide images). Along the same lines, there are telephone numbers that one can access from any fixed or mobile phone offering erotic conversations, etc.
If one had to highlight something that is truly specific to the Internet, it would be the possibility to make good ideas available to many persons without the need to mobilize a large number of persons or expend great financial resources. One can also do a lot of good through movies, the press or television, but it is much harder to do so because it requires having one's own publishing company or production company or television station, or having the possibility to act freely in an already existing company, which is difficult for many reasons and demands an extensive professional preparation. Through the Internet, with a modest outlay of time and money, one can reach many people. It's true that with the same limited resources one can also spread evil, but this is nothing new, since evil is already abundantly spread through the other means of communication. The true novelty introduced by the Internet is that it makes it possible for persons or groups with modest resources, who until now have not been able to intervene positively in the world of public opinion, to spread good on a large scale.
2. Correct use of the Internet
With its specific characteristics, the Internet fosters both good and bad. It functions basically as a vehicle or channel for transmitting facts and information, which broadly speaking can be seen as something good (just as printed books, the telephone, television, etc. are a good). It thus represents a clear advance over previous epochs. As happens with many other technological means (for example, advances in the biological sciences that give rise to so many bio-ethical problems), it makes possible a good use and a bad use of its resources, an expert use and an inexpert one. Except for the case of children, which requires separate consideration, the Internet usually only burns a person who wants to be burned, or who at least likes to play with fire. The problem that it presents is a problem of moral education and strength of convictions in a person who uses it. The Internet is affected by a problem that is widespread in our day and age—progress in human capabilities (in action, in knowledge, in communications, etc.), without first having acquired the knowledge and prudence needed to adequately govern them, so that these increased capabilities will further the good of individuals and societies, rather than leading to their impoverishment and corruption. In this regard, perhaps there is a need to lament the fact that, since it is a relatively new instrument, the various entities responsible for imparting formation (family, school, catechesis, etc.) are not always adequately prepared to provide a well-grounded and incisive education in what refers to its use. This is so despite the reality that formulating and transmitting a culture of the good use of the Internet and the other modern means of communication is an important part of the moral and Christian formation required for today's world.
These considerations show that the ethical problem of the Internet is the problem of how to use it correctly or, in other words, how to foster the formation and virtues required to use it correctly, both on the part of the one who puts information up on the web and the one who makes use of it. The formation and virtues required to make proper use of this instrument, so that it will truly be a good for the one who uses it, cannot be replaced by any technical means or control measures. All the providers of filters and control systems insist on this point, both because these systems are never perfect and because a person who wants to circumvent them, if he has a bit of expertise, can always find a way to do so. As happens with other means, it is very difficult to prevent an adult intent on doing evil from doing it, and the greater the impediments placed the greater is the price one pays in terms of a loss of freedom and trust (often with counter-productive results), or by slowing down work. A study of the ethical aspects of the Internet has to consider above all the general criteria regarding its correct use. Here one would need to distinguish the various contexts (work, school, family, entertainment, etc.) and the various types of persons. In general terms, one could speak about temperance, common sense, prudence, and concern for the totality of the person and the totality of his faculties and dimensions. Except for certain types of professional work, the Internet (and, in general, the computer) is just another instrument that one employs. Any excessive concentration on it is humanly and ethically harmful. Its use should never isolate one from others (friendships, social relations), nor impede outdoor activities, reading books and magazines in one's field of study or of general interest, consulting other sources of information, having other games and playing sports when one is a child, writing, seeing good movies and plays, concerts, etc.
Making good use of the Internet means always using it for something quite specific. It means looking for something specific, knowing where to find it or employing a search engine that is well-known, seeking to buy a specific product, etc. It would make little sense to go on the Internet without first knowing what one wants to do, simply because one has some time free, or in order to check out new happenings, or because one is tired and wants to rest by "surfing" from one site to another. A well-formed person should refuse to give in on this point, just as one doesn't use a car simply to "drive around," without a clear destination, uselessly wasting time and gas. If one does have some free time, it is better to open up a good book. If it is the case of children who want to play video games, one needs to know which ones and where they are to be found, etc. Also in this case one should seek to do something specific, while keeping in mind that children need to spend time with their friends, take part in outdoor activities, get exercise, acquire the habit of reading, etc. Going on the Internet without a specific and valid reason, merely out of curiosity, already has an ethically negative facet, and can easily give rise to more serious moral evils.
When faced with material that leads or could lead one to commit sins against faith, charity, justice or chastity, one needs to observe the same rules of behavior that apply to other situations (books, the press, conversations, etc.). The moral principles on occasions of sin need to be applied here. A grave moral duty exists to avoid freely chosen proximate serious occasions that are not necessary, and the necessary means must also be employed to render necessary occasions remote. The proximate or remote nature of an occasion, as well as its seriousness, can be taken in either an absolute or a relative sense. That is, a situation can be a serious and proximate occasion for people in general, or it can be a serious and proximate danger only for a specific person or persons, and not for others.
In my opinion, and without seeking to minimize the complex moral problem involved, it would be simplistic to consider the Internet in general as an occasion of sin. Pastoral experience may sometimes focus the question of the Internet along these lines. But reflection on the facts that this experience provides doesn't authorize one to draw a negative conclusion in general. These problems are not present in many people who use the Internet, even daily, and there are many others who do good through it. The majority of people with moral problems in this area are persons'who might have had the same problems even if the Internet didn't exist. It is also true that some people who generally act morally have fallen into certain moral failings only due to the fact that they happened to come upon an immoral web page. But these are by no means the majority of cases. Above all to avoid these situations, and also in the case of children, some technical means providing protection can be of great use. These will be dealt with in the next section.
3. Filters and others protective devices
Given that the Internet makes available both positive and negative content, some technical devices have been developed that impede the passage of negative elements, just as contaminated water is passed through a filter to remove harmful elements. These devices produce an "immediate prevention," which presupposes the "remote prevention" of a cultural and ethical nature that fosters in the person the decision to want to use the Internet well. Without this cultural and ethical component, filters will be of very little use.
The first systems of immediate prevention that were employed functioned on the basis of a list of unsuitable web pages that were blocked from access. This system required constant updating, since someone had to be constantly exploring the Internet to amplify the list of "prohibited" pages. It proved not to be very practical.
With the advent of more powerful personal computers came the development of programs capable of analyzing the content of the page one is seeking to enter on the spot, impeding access if it contains negative content. This system is found in the majority of filters now in use: Optenet, CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, Net Nanny, Surfwatch, X-Stop, Rated-PG. One of the limits these can have is that they only analyze the content in certain languages (for example, the most widespread ones in
Another method of protection is to catalogue pages using the ICRA system. The person responsible for the page defines it with a scale of criteria that is given him. The user installs on his computer the ICRAplus filter, which is free, and the user himself decides what level of violence, indecent language, nudity, etc., he will accept. To change these criteria one needs to know the password. Unfortunately, few web pages adhere to this system of self-cataloguing, which makes this method relatively ineffective at present.
A third method of protection is to connect to the Internet through a provider that already employs a serious and well-grounded system of filtering. This is the case, for example, with "Davide.it." This is a free and effective system, very appropriate for families, although it isn't perfect; at times it blocks out good material, or fails to block out material that is not very suitable. Experts with good criteria recommend its use in homes with children. Its real limitation is that young people today know a lot about computers, and can open a free connection to another provider without the parents realizing it. The prohibition in Windows XP against setting up other connections is easy to get around.
A final system, devised for the protection of young people, consists in installing the free ICRAplus filter and programming it so that it permits access only to the pages that are expressly listed. The philosophy behind it is the same as that underlying the assembling of a home library. Just as the parents buy only the books they want their children to read, so they decide which web pages their children need for their study, information, rest, play, etc. I think that applying this system in the case of adults is more debatable. In any case, it requires a careful upbringing, which enables a young person to realize why it is helpful for the correct use he wants to make of the Internet. Otherwise, it isn't formative and can even be counter-productive. A young person with this system of protection at home, who when in other places avidly seeks access to all the pages blocked out on his family's computer, shows that his upbringing has been a complete failure. Sooner or later he will be living on his own and making his own decisions, and perhaps he will fall into greater evil than others who have enjoyed more freedom and learned how to administer it. There is abundant pedagogical experience regarding this reality: people who no longer pray or go to Mass because they were forced to pray or to go to Mass in the school they attended when they were young, etc. Many studies exist that oblige one to reflect seriously on how restrictions are set; in any case these restrictions have to be suited to the age and growth of young people.
4. Use of the Internet by children and adolescents at home
Children and adolescents today make extensive use of computers in their homes, including access to the Internet. Since they have not yet attained human maturity and stable moral virtues, they are especially exposed to negative influences. A recent study brought out by the International Crime Analysis Association, entitled "Child Internet Risk Perception," found that 77% of young people between the ages of 8 and 13 use the Internet. But only 26% of their parents keep a close watch on the use their children make of this instrument. 52% of the children interviewed said they had come across pornographic material, and 24% said they had been curious to see what it involved. 13% of the children interviewed said they had been in contact with pederasts, and 70% of these had not mentioned this fact to their parents.
Various groups of experts have studied this problem. The Bishops Conference in the United States brought out an interesting document entitled Your Family and Cyberspace, dated 22 June 2000. The Vatican document, Church and Internet, dated 28 February 2002, says: "For the sake of their children, as well as for their own sakes, parents must 'learn and practice the skills of discerning viewers and listeners and readers, acting as models of prudent use of media in the home.' As far as the Internet is concerned, children and young people often are more familiar with it than their parents are, but parents are still seriously obliged to guide and supervise their children in its use. If this means learning more about the Internet than they have up to now; this will be all to the good. Parental supervision should include making sure that filtering technology is used in computers available to children when that is financially and technically feasible, in order to protect them as much as possible from pornography, sexual predators, and other threats. Unsupervised exposure to the Internet should not be allowed. Parents and children should dialogue together about what is seen and experienced in cyberspace; sharing with other families who have the same values and concerns will also be helpful. The fundamental parental duty here is to help children become discriminating, responsible Internet users and not addicts of the Internet, neglecting contact with their peers and with nature itself."
Parents have to educate their children also in this area, dedicating time and effort, if necessary, to inform themselves about the Internet, since their children make use of it. In the case of children who are still minors, parents have a moral duty to protect them by one of the secure systems discussed above. It is also very advisable that the computer with Internet access be placed where people pass by frequently: the living room, the kitchen, if space is available, etc. Children should also be told never to give out personal information (for example, filling out questionnaires) or make contact with unknown persons. They should also be advised to mention to their parents anything they find strange, to exercise prudence when their friends at school pass on disks to them, etc. If this is explained to them in the right way, children will see these precautions as a help to using computers correctly, which they freely want to do, including criteria such as not "surfing" the Internet without a specific goal, seeking only to fill in the time.
When their children are older, the moral necessity continues to exist of ensuring that the computer they use at home has a filter. Thus one prevents their accidentally coming upon quite objectionable material that could lead them along a bad path and even eventually create an addiction. For example, being confronted with heavily erotic material is a serious and proximate occasion for anyone, and parents have a moral duty to protect their children from these dangers. This is the conduct that upright parents in fact instill in their children: not going to certain places with them, avoiding certain locations, etc. Just as this is not seen as restricting their freedom, so too the precautions mentioned above shouldn't be seen as a lack of respect for their children's freedom.
In families with several children, the parents may notice that one of them is misusing the Internet. In this case, it is hard to give general rules for the best way to react. But usually it is bad pedagogy to insist that "the just must pay for the sins of others," or to force all the children to follow more stringent restrictions than are morally necessary. One has to confront, energetically if need be, the real and specific problem of the child who is not behaving well, while also avoiding the creation of an atmosphere of mistrust or lack of freedom in the family. Normally it is not advisable to prevent all the children from having access to the Internet. It would represent a clear failure in their responsibility to teach their children the correct use of the information media, which whether they like it or not forms part of today's world, and which their children will have to learn how to use at school, at the university, in their future work, and later on in the home they will set up when they marry, guiding in turn the children God gives them. In my opinion, the argument that in former times the Internet didn't exist and no one suffered because of this fact, is a false argument. In the past there were also no cars, planes, telephones, etc., and that is no reason to forgo these means. What is needed is to learn how to use them correctly.
As children grow up, their situation with regard to the Internet becomes that of adults, which the next section will consider.
5. Use of the Internet by adults
The use of the Internet by adults can be considered from two points of view: that of the user and that of those responsible for its use (business, student residence, school, university, etc.).
From the perspective of the user, we will first consider the case of a person with sound morals who uses the Internet for his work or study, and therefore who doesn't seek out unsuitable material or waste time "surfing" aimlessly on the web. If his business, university, school, etc. employs the protection of a proxy or filter (for example, Optenet), the use of the Internet should not give rise to any moral problems.
However, if there is no system of protection (proxy or filter), he will sometimes come across quite negative (pornographic) material. This is inevitable since those promoting these objectionable pages employ many systems to ensure that people are drawn to enter them, even if they don't want to. Those who are experts in the field inform me that this is achieved by various methods. One is to record the most frequent errors people make when typing the name of a popular site (for example, a newspaper or search engine), so that when this mistaken address is typed in one is immediately connected to a pornographic site. Another method involves placing ads on other sites that link to pornographic sites. It is also possible to introduce hidden programs into the operating system (adware, spyware), which constantly multiply and link to immoral sites. Other methods also exist which are too complicated to discuss here.
Given this situation, and the reality of human weakness, it can happen that morally sound people who are sometimes or frequently exposed to heavily pornographic material can fall, and if an effective remedy is not taken, can even become addicted. Therefore serious reasons exist to state in general terms, without prejudging the moral situation of the user, that a person who habitually uses the Internet without any protection, especially if he does so over many hours, will sometimes or often find himself in a proximate occasion of serious sin, which one has a grave moral obligation to avoid. Therefore, for a person working under these conditions, the moral duty exists to use a filter (Optenet, CyberPatrol, etc.).
According to the teaching of St. Alphonse, it could happen that a person of great moral rectitude who works without a filter may not be exposed to these dangers, either because he exercises a lot of caution or because he doesn't spend much time on the Internet, and the experience of months or even years could verify that these dangers don't exist for him. In this case it is not clear that he has a moral obligation to use a filter. Nevertheless, using one is a prudential measure that is highly recommendable. It prevents unnecessary worry and any morally sound person should not disdain, since no one can be certain he will resist temptations that appear suddenly. Let us turn to another possible situation. If a person who has to work on the Internet, and who doesn't use a filter, should happen to fall into serious sin a number of times because of this fact, his repentance for these sins and consequent purpose of amendment requires employing specific means to ensure at least that the proximate occasion is rendered remote. One of these means is the use of an adequate filter. Others might include working in a place where others pass by or restricting one's use of the Internet to a minimum.
An analogous moral situation is found in those who work with a filter, but who have not yet attained a solid moral life, or who, from time to time, leave the door wide open to temptation. From the point of view of Catholic morality, these people have the pressing duty to avoid anything that could gravely harm their Christian life, putting into practice the necessary means to avoid sin. Depending on circumstances, they may have to stop using the Internet, at least for some months, if it seems that the difficulty in question is due to a specific moment in one's life and will be resolved over time; or they may need to make use of an ICRAplus filter that allows one to access only the web pages definitely required for one's work. In extreme cases one may need to consider changing one's job. If the difficulty arises not only from using the Internet but also from television, magazines, etc., one is faced with a wider problem, and the remedies that need to be employed are also wider.
A final point to highlight is that chronic situations of difficulty are usually marked by several factors: using the Internet without a filter, in one's own room, at night, and without a clear aim. These can be people who are alone or who isolate themselves (although they live in a residence alongside many other person), and who use the Internet to fill in the time, with the attitude at least implicitly at times of seeking satisfaction for their sensuality.
6. Use of the Internet in businesses, residences, educational institutions, etc.
Those who work in businesses, offices, etc. have an obligation in justice to fulfill the hours of work indicated in their labor agreement. Using e-mail or the Internet for other purposes is analogous to using the telephone or reading newspapers and books for purposes that have nothing to do with one's work responsibilities.
A certain flexibility is possible here: for example, an employee may need to make a brief phone call to someone at home. But when those in charge see that clear abuses are taking place, they have a right to limit the use of the Internet: for example, by installing a filter that permits access only to the sites related to one's work, or by blocking access to web pages that can lead to abusive use (music, photos, clips, films, etc.). Those in positions of responsibility should make a prudential judgment regarding the possibility that these measure could turn out to be counter-productive in the end by damaging the spirit of trust and cooperation found in their employees. But it is clear that employees are morally obliged to use the computers and Internet access available to them in a way that accords with their labor contract. The fact that a business refuses to provide means for entertaining oneself or for evading work is not an undue restriction on employees' freedom. Naturally, one should always act here with flexibility and understanding.
A more delicate problem is that presented by residences for students, or for seminarians or priests. On the one hand, an entity of this type will seek to foster a helpful atmosphere and offer certain service: an atmosphere of freedom and trust, a good work environment, respect for people's rightful autonomy and privacy, and Internet access for one's study. On the other hand, it also has a right to demand respect for certain clear norms of behavior, including external moral behavior.
If Internet access is provided in each one's room, residents will most likely spend time "surfing" the Internet, "chatting" with friends, etc. Experience has shown that, even in the case of people with a fairly good moral formation, the Internet is often used in a way that is quite immoral, with clear harm for those involved. At times those in charge of these residences do nothing to counteract this danger, claiming that each person is responsible for his or her own behavior, since after all we are talking about adults. Or they might be afraid of being called puritanical or being accused of not respecting others' freedom. Or they could even argue that God himself, who loves us more than anyone, doesn't prevent the bad use of our freedom. Or they may seek to avoid creating an atmosphere of mistrust, which could be counter-productive, pointing out that residents can always do what they want by going somewhere else or later when they leave the residence, etc.
All these arguments certainly contain an element of truth. Besides, cheap Internet access is easily available to residents through mobile phones or prepaid cards. Therefore the key element is always the formation and moral convictions of the one who uses the Internet. Nevertheless, the question here is not how adults should be allowed to use their freedom, but the services offered by a residence or educational institution. And just as one should seek to provide healthy nourishment or a good work environment, so it is reasonable to also want to offer a sound Internet service. Therefore a well-formed conscience requires that those responsible for these entities install, between the entry point of the line and the student connection, a server with a proxy (which also provides protection against viruses and information pirates) and a filter, or at the very least with a filter. This entails no judgment regarding the users' intentions nor a restriction of their freedom, but is simply the reflection of a sound philosophy regarding the services a residence should offer. It offers an instrument for work, information, rest, etc., but not a pathway to immoral sites. The latter lies outside the aims of any educational entity. A resident would have a right to complain if he wasn't provided with a suitable work place, but not if he isn't offered immoral entertainment.
Depending on specific circumstances (type of residents, etc.), one may want to consider the possibility of employing other measures, for example, setting up a well-designed computer room, and only providing Internet access there. For certain kinds of work requiring the simultaneous use of many books or other materials, this solution presents many problems. In my opinion, it is good to avoid unnecessary restrictions. The use of a proxy and filter is a sufficient guarantee. Perhaps at times this won't be true. This question requires a prudential judgment that takes into account all the circumstances (nature of the institution, etc.), as well as the cost of certain measures for the atmosphere of trust and freedom that one is seeking to foster. Since it is a question of adults, moral formation and personal virtue are indispensable. These measures simply seek to provide reasonable assistance and prevent a cooperation in evil that is totally incompatible with the aims of an educational institution. If it becomes known that one or more persons are using the Internet to engage in scandalous conduct (leading others into evil, storing and distributing obscene photos, etc.), one needs to act decisively with them, while also avoiding restrictions that are unnecessary for the rest, since these measures have counterproductive effects among adults. The ideal one has to aim for is that all who pass through the residence will leave with solid criteria and convictions regarding the use of the Internet, and not simply passively accept restrictions that they will reject as soon as they are free to do so.
From all that has been said above, it is clear that forming people in the virtues required for the correct use of the Internet is an essential part of the moral and Christian formation required today. The technical means of protection and the other measures of prudence demanded by the various situations should be considered within this positive context.
Angel Rodriguez Luño
Professor, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
2:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home